Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Time (Taylor Swift song)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mergers can be discussed outside the AFD process Courcelles 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Time (Taylor Swift song)
- The Last Time (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This passes ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Red (Taylor Swift album). This can be summarizes in the album article. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of SIZERULE, so that is the reason these must either be deleted or kept. They meet the criterion of No. 2 and these sources confirm No. 1 The Huffington Post and LA Times. So, now it must be kept, or else wikipedia's rules don't matter at all!HotHat (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominator literally admits that the article is notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.